Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
>> > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
>> > derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on
>> > this subject.
>> Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost
>> everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is
>> not absolute unanimity on the alternative.
> That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you
> attribute malicious intent.
Um, I have said nothing about your intent.
I think you are desperate to do whatever minimizes your costs.
> What I am doing is asking the Debian community for opinions on the
> appropriate thing for Debian derivatives to do.
Right, because you are now interested in scalability. If you were
*really* interested in scalability, then you wouldn't adopt the
wonderful "hey, all the patches are on our website, come and get 'em!"
You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
Which is *fine*, you don't need to. But then, geez, stop pretending
you are a great cooperator with Debian.
> In response, you've been unnecessarily hostile, argumentative and
> accusatory. There's simply no cause for it. The most productive
> thing you could do in this situation would be to read my mail from
> last May and (politely and thoughtfully) answer the questions
Do what has *already been suggested*. You need to be using different
version numbers *anyway* if you are recompiling the packages. So
given that you are doing that (right?!) it is no trouble to adjust the
> Don't you realize how much easier it would be to ignore these issues
> entirely, rather than endure these harangues just for the sake of trying to
> collect information? Why do you think I would bother if I just wanted to
> piss you off?
I didn't say you want to piss anyone off. What I said was that what
you are doing is having that effect. I think it's a reaction you wish
didn't happen, but not so much that you are willing to change Ubuntu's
>> Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is
>> right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too.
> Nonsense. What we are doing now amounts basically to inaction, is
> consistent with how Debian derivatives have worked in the past, and has no
> relevance whatsoever to the Debian policy manual. Please read the previous
> threads on this subject.
No, you are distributing packages with incorrect Maintainer fields.
That's not "inaction", it's a specific action.